State v. Soria

Annotate this Case

Petitioner Emilio Soria was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment, holding that pursuant to State v. Nesmith, which states that mens rea must be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation, the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Shinsato's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea. Remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Download PDF

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-10-0000253 30-APR-2012 08:37 AM NO. SCWC-10-0000253 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIO SORIA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. CAAP-10-0000253; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-05767) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.; with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting) Petitioner Emilio Soria (“Soria”) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s September 9, 2011 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its August 17, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the District Court of the First Circuit’s December 6, 2010 Judgment and Notice. The District Court adjudged Soria guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 291E-61(a)(1)(2007).1 We accepted Soria’s 1 HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) provided, at the time of the alleged offense, the following: A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle . . . [w]hile under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair the person’s normal mental faculties or ability to care for the person and guard against casualty[.] ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** application for writ of certiorari and now vacate the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and remand this case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Soria’s Complaint without prejudice. On certiorari, Soria contends that the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge. In State v. Nesmith, however, we recently held that mens rea must be alleged in an HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation. ____ (2012). State v. Nesmith, ____ Hawai#i ___, ___ P.3d Therefore, Soria’s HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea, and the ICA gravely erred in holding otherwise. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal is vacated, and this case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2012. Timothy I. MacMaster for petitioner/ defendant-appellant /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Keith M. Kaneshiro, Prosecuting Attorney, and Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent/plaintiffappellee /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.